tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post2345500705164975597..comments2019-09-14T15:09:46.823-05:00Comments on Tudor Q and A: Open thread - The Sisters Who Would Be QueenLarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630629272030282584noreply@blogger.comBlogger117125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-77287499061646465072018-10-16T13:14:26.795-05:002018-10-16T13:14:26.795-05:00My brother recommended I would possibly like this ...My brother recommended I would possibly like this blog. He was entirely right.<br />This post actually made my day. You can not consider simply how a lot time I had spent for this info!<br />Thank you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-90731708079722047402009-01-29T00:01:00.000-06:002009-01-29T00:01:00.000-06:00Chris Skidmore, who has written a biography of Edw...Chris Skidmore, who has written a biography of Edward VI and is coming out with (I think) a book in 2009 about Amy Robsart's death, wrote a favorable review of this book in the Spectator magazine for Jan 24, 2009, "Pawns in the Royal Game":<BR/><BR/>http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/books/3275241/pawns-in-the-royal-game.thtml<BR/><BR/>The review touches upon the controversial identification of a Lavina Teerlinc minature by David Starkey as being that of Jane Grey ("no other portrait of Jane is known to exist"; it would be quite a coup to find one, phd historian, and I wish you good fortune in your research). The review includes an excerpt from Katherine Grey's frank letters to her husband, considered too scandalous to reprint by the Victorians.Foosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02200694434095248343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-37163107490208384222009-01-19T19:49:00.000-06:002009-01-19T19:49:00.000-06:00You are all very welcome. Checking in with this si...You are all very welcome. Checking in with this site is always one of the highlights of my day, and I always learn something from the other questioners and contributors.PhD Historiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-60368821720396641812009-01-18T20:06:00.000-06:002009-01-18T20:06:00.000-06:00And let me add my thanks again to PhD Historian an...And let me add my thanks again to PhD Historian and everyone else who commented in this thread! It's our busiest one yet!Larahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16630629272030282584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-89986763881217184712009-01-18T19:47:00.000-06:002009-01-18T19:47:00.000-06:00It wouldn't be the first time the BL missed what w...It wouldn't be the first time the BL missed what was in front of their eyes....or in their vaults.<BR/><BR/>But thank goodness they occasionally let us in to poke around...<BR/><BR/>Thank you PHD Historian for leading us through this text and for the thoughtful discussion that ensued.kbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04840188159816630368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-36699663317113596052009-01-18T19:10:00.000-06:002009-01-18T19:10:00.000-06:00Tamise, British Library Sloane Manuscript 3011 is ...Tamise, British Library Sloane Manuscript 3011 is not catalogued as a former possession of either Jane or Mary Grey, and the BL makes no claim that it was in fact ever owned by either of the two sisters. However, the evidence supports Ms de Lisle and I in our shared belief that the book actually did belong first to Jane Grey Dudley and then to Mary Grey Keyes.<BR/><BR/>The book was handwritten and never printed or published.<BR/>Only one other handwritten copy of it is known to exist (Cambridge University Library).<BR/>Both were certainly written by Michelangelo Florio. <BR/>Florio was probably hired by Henry Grey to teach his daughters Italian in about 1552-3.<BR/>The BL copy is dedicated to Jane, and the language of the dedication goes beyond the customary for such inscriptions and suggests that Florio was in frequent personal contact with Jane and himself gave the inscribed book to Jane.<BR/>The Cambridge copy of the same text is dedicated to Henry Herbert, who was married to Jane's and Mary's sister Katherine Grey in the triple weddings of May 1553, during the time Henry was teaching the Grey sisters Italian.<BR/>The Cambridge copy may well have passed into Katherine Grey's possession after the annullment of the marriage to Herbert.<BR/><BR/>I think the BL is simply unaware of the significance of the book.<BR/><BR/>As for portraiture, Cunard has just announced a massive price cut for transatlantic crossings in 2009, so I may be able to afford a return trip to the UK to conduct more research in an effort to find the lost Hardwick portrait of Jane.<BR/>Finding it is on the top of my "to do" list!PhD Historiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-87410313766228900832009-01-18T10:09:00.000-06:002009-01-18T10:09:00.000-06:00Chapter 25 : The Last Sister‘That book still exist...Chapter 25 : The Last Sister<BR/><BR/>‘That book still exists, largely overlooked, in the vaults of the British Library as Sloane Manuscript 3011. It is one of the few documents that was certainly handled by Jane that is today readily accessible to researchers and that they can themselves handle. Call me weird, but even after many years of conducting archival research, I still get a childlike thrill at touching something that I know iconic figures from the past once owned and touched, whether that figure is Jane, Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, Cecil, or someone else.’<BR/><BR/>I didn’t know that Mary’s book was at the British Library. I think it is amazing seeing Jane’s prayer book on display where you can actually view her writing. <BR/><BR/>‘Ms de Lisle mentions on page 277, very much in passing, that Bess Hardwick Cavendish owned a portrait of Jane Grey. If it can be found, it will be the only documented life portrait of Jane ... a priceless national treasure.’<BR/><BR/>With the other ‘possible portraits’ coming to light in recent years, I really hope this happens.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for ‘blogging’ ‘The Sisters Who Would Be Queen’, and for answering my questions, it has been a very informative read.Tamisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18331033036484296289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-23441088460915260092009-01-17T19:16:00.000-06:002009-01-17T19:16:00.000-06:00Ms de Lisle does mention the 1986 film Lady Jane, ...Ms de Lisle does mention the 1986 film <I>Lady Jane</I>, though she does not go into it in any great detail. Her interest is in its portrayal of Frances Brandon Grey, specifically the scene in which Frances is out hunting in the winter snow. Frances is depicted as rather ruthlessly circling in on a doe and quite deliberately and coldly shooting it, with all the men standing back to watch passively as she dominates the scene (and them, symbolically), the doe's dark red blood spilling on the pure white snow. The scene is laden with malevolence, foreboding, and symbolism. Ms de Lisle interprets the scene as a cinematic device that foreshadows Frances's sacrificing of her daughter in pursuit of family aggrandizement. <BR/><BR/>Ms de Lisle observes (brilliantly, in my opinion) that the scene "establishes [Frances] early on in the film as a ruthless destroyer of innocents: a wicked Queen to Jane's Snow White." The wicked Queen/mother/stepmother literary trope is a common one, yet I had never considered this scene in that light myself until Ms de Lisle mentioned it. But clearly nineteenth-century authors were deeply influenced by their own childhood hearings of such stories, and they drew on those memories as they depicted Frances as wicked queen/mother/stepmother figure and Jane as a Snow White/Cinderella/Sleeping Beauty pure and virtuous innocent wronged.<BR/><BR/>I agree that the film did a reasonable job of presesnting Jane's story, but only up to the scene in the garden in which Jane and Guildford face off over the impending marriage. From that point forward, the film goes off the rails and departs from even the mythologized Strickland-Davey account. The entire plot line involving "shillings worth a shilling" and beggars on the side of the road is utter nonsense, as is the love story (but what is a Hollywood film without a little sex and nudity?). Patrick Stewart was 46 when he made the film, yet Henry Grey was just 36 in 1553. Kestleman <I>did</I> turn in an excellent performance and protrayed Frances in a manner consistent with the Jane myth, but she too was 10 yeas too old. And then there's the whole Feckenham issue ... that one really made me crazy. <BR/><BR/>Ms de Lisle does not mention <I>Tudor Rose</I> (1936). I do own a copy, but it is on old-fashioned VHS tape so it has been a few years since I last viewed it. Nova Pilbeam was exactly the correct age to play Jane, unlike Helena Bonham Carter in <I>Lady Jane</I>. Beyond that, the dialogue and acting were a bit heavy-handed, especially the scenes with John Knox. And there were numerous historical inaccuracies, even if the Jane myth is the basis for the "history." It is a very short film at just 80 minutes. Useless as "history," but excellent for studying social concerns of the 1930s.PhD Historiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-46534461282890493422009-01-16T22:40:00.000-06:002009-01-16T22:40:00.000-06:00Does de Lisle discuss screen portrayals of Jane Gr...Does de Lisle discuss screen portrayals of Jane Grey? I know you don't approve of the 1980s flick <I>Lady Jane</I>, but compared to a lot of Tudor films I think it did a reasonable job of presenting Jane's life using the accepted sources of the time and trying to make Jane's religious beliefs intelligible to a modern audience. I also thought there were some good performances by Jane Lapotaire as Mary, Patrick Stewart and Sara Kestelman as Jane's monstrous father and mother (per the traditional view), and a rather good cameo by Richard Vernon as the "time-honored" Marquess of Winchester, presenting the crown to Jane with a nicely calculated blend of self-interest and apprehension. Nubile teen romance was shoehorned in, of course, but then the backers always want some assurance of making money.<BR/><BR/>There's another movie I haven't seen, but which is mentioned in the book <I>Tudors and Stuarts on Film</I>, called <I>Tudor Rose</I>. Have you seen that and do you have an opinion on its view of Jane? Does de Lisle?<BR/><BR/>Thank you for taking the time and energy to blog this book. It has been a marvelous discussion and I have learned so much! Amazon has notified me that the book is in the mail to me so I will be able to refer to your blogging as I read.Foosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02200694434095248343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-40086460120922670602009-01-15T21:39:00.000-06:002009-01-15T21:39:00.000-06:00My sincere apologies, Anon, especially to Ms de Li...My sincere apologies, Anon, especially to Ms de Lisle - I confess I misread the relevant sentence. Charles Stuart was the brother of Darnley, and the <I>father</I> of Arbella, not the husband. What was I thinking!?!?<BR/>Arbella married William Seymour, who was later granted the title Duke of Somerset, last held by his great-grandfather, the Lord Protector Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset.<BR/><BR/>Thank you very much for pointing out my mistake.PhD Historiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-17942632003834658512009-01-15T18:35:00.000-06:002009-01-15T18:35:00.000-06:00PhD Historian,In the last post, minus three, you n...PhD Historian,<BR/>In the last post, minus three, you note that Arbella Stuart married Darnley's brother Charles. Did de Lisle write that? Because Im pretty sure that Charles Stuart was Arbella's _father_ . Just checking, as Arbella, especially her fabulous letters, are one of my Tudor sub-obsessions. <BR/><BR/>--kateAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-53532188547416517262009-01-15T15:42:00.000-06:002009-01-15T15:42:00.000-06:00Summation:At the end of this assessment, I must co...Summation:<BR/><BR/>At the end of this assessment, I must confess that I feel terrible ... as though I have betrayed a friend. I did want very much to be able to gush about how wonderful this book is from beginning to end. Unfortunately, I cannot go quite as far as “gushing.” I <I>can</I> say that as a narrative account that offers a fresh perspective on the story of the three Grey sisters, freed from the mythology that has developed and enveloped them over the past four and a half centuries, it is well-written and very entertaining. I can highly recommend this book as a compelling historical drama. <BR/><BR/>The author has clearly read her Jane Austen and heeded the words of the character <BR/>Catherine Morland (<I>Northanger Abbey</I>) when she said “History, real solemn history, I cannot be interested in.... I read it a little as a duty; but it tells me nothing that does not either vex or weary me. The quarrels of popes and kings, with wars and pestilences in every page; the men all so good for nothing, and hardly any women at all - it is very tiresome.” Ms de Lisle has clearly made a concerted effort at making the history of the three Grey sisters less “tiresome” through use of a little literary license and occasional informed imagining. And although the Pulitzer Prize-winning author David McCullough (<I>John Adams</I> and <I>1776</I>) once wrote, “No harm's done to history by making it something someone would want to read,” I cannot help but argue that extreme caution must be exercised in that “making” in order to prevent the “history” being told from becoming yet another myth or legend. There is a very fine line between history and historical fiction, and while this book is absolutely "history" in the best possible sense, there are enough sprinklings of imagination and literary license to give me briefest pause.<BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, Ms de Lisle has produced an account that is closer to the “history” of Jane Grey and her sisters than any yet published, without question. And for that she is to be highly commended. I only wish that she had been more aggressive with footnoting in instances where she tells a new version of the story, so that readers might consult the original texts and share more directly in her exploration. <BR/><BR/>From my perspective, the best works of “history” seek to accurately and faithfully recount past lives and past events as far as the primary sources allow and to situate those lives and events in the broader sweep of time. The <I>very</I> best works also analyze those former lives and long-distant events in an effort to learn something from them that can be applied in turn to the world of today or tomorrow. <I> The Sisters Who Would Be Queen</I> is among the best in that it accurately and faithfully recounts a story that has otherwise been overwritten by myth. But it lacks the kind of extended, in-depth analysis that might place it among the <I>very</I> best. Even so, I recommend it unreservedly as an excellent and entertaining story, and even as a resource for undergraduate research studies in Tudor history. The world has waited over four centuries for the story of Jane and her sisters to be told without whitewash, bias, and hidden agendas, and Ms de Lisle has ended that wait.PhD Historiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-35387300562881633962009-01-15T15:27:00.000-06:002009-01-15T15:27:00.000-06:00EpilogueThough the “story” was declared at an end ...Epilogue<BR/><BR/>Though the “story” was declared at an end in the previous chapter, we now have an Epilogue that actually carries the story down to the modern day, ending with Faith Cook’s biography of Jane Grey published in 2005. <BR/><BR/>This Epilogue is far more satisfying intellectually, however. It is packed with marvelous ideas and the beginnings of fascinating arguments. Ms de Lisle really gets right to the “meat of the matter” in these few pages. She traces the evolution of the myth of Jane Grey (and her sisters) from its sixteenth-century origins right down to Ms Cook’s evangelically inspired but traditionally told biography. <BR/><BR/>But despite my enthusiasm for this Epilogue, I nonetheless find it less satisfying than I think it could have/should have been. Ms de Lisle mentions the plays of Thomas Dekker and Joseph Banks, for example, stating that they heavily influenced subsequent depictions of Jane Grey as a submissive romantic heroine. I am disappointed, however, that she did not explore this argument in any real depth and offered no specific evidence from Banks’s play (most of Dekker’s text has been lost). And curiously, though she mentions Dekker and Banks, she does not mention Nicholas Rowe. Yet Rowe’s play about Jane was produced far more widely than were Dekker’s and Banks’s, and Rowe’s was printed and re-issued dozens of times between 1715 and the modern day. If any dramatist influenced the development of the myth of Jane Grey, it was Rowe. Indeed, many literary historians credit Rowe's writing of <I>The Tragedy of Lady Jane Grey</I> with his being named Poet Laureate.<BR/><BR/>There is also a very intriguing suggestion that the mythical figure of Jane Grey was eroticized by later writers, especially in the nineteenth century. Ms de Lisle had mentioned this idea several times earlier in the book, and also in connection with Frances Brandon Grey. But all she does is mention the idea; she does not develop it. The average reader will, I believe, be left slightly mystified by what this all means. It is a theme I would really have liked to have seen explored, as I believe it has enormous bearing on the development of the Jane myth during the nineteenth century. <BR/><BR/>So while the Epilogue begins to tell a new story, one about the evolution of a myth, it does not flesh out the story in any detail. I would encourage Ms de Lisle to explore this entire area further, as it would make a superb magazine article.PhD Historiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-21865032033270076562009-01-15T15:12:00.000-06:002009-01-15T15:12:00.000-06:00Chapter 28 : The Story's EndThis is another except...Chapter 28 : The Story's End<BR/><BR/>This is another exceptionally short chapter, one that will satisfy the genealogy enthusiasts as it traces the Seymour line through the course of the seventeenth century. There is little here, however, that is relevant to the story of the Grey sisters themselves or to the author's central thesis.PhD Historiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-65744680196210525182009-01-15T15:07:00.000-06:002009-01-15T15:07:00.000-06:00Chapter 27 : Katherine’s Sons and the Death of Eli...Chapter 27 : Katherine’s Sons and the Death of Elizabeth<BR/><BR/>For me, the book could easily have ended with the preceding chapter and Mary Grey Keyes’s death. There is a certain narrative finality to the demise of all three of the figures from the book’s title. I do understand, however, that many readers want to know “the rest of the story” (as the old US television show used to say). Readers and movie-goers seem to like to have all the loose ends neatly tied up.<BR/><BR/>Thus Ms de Lisle follows the lives and careers of Katherine’s sons Edward (Lord Beauchamp) and Thomas. I found it difficult to keep track of who was who as Katherine’s husband and son are referred to by their titles, Hertford and Beauchamp, while poor Thomas is known only by his name. But that is purely a stylistic choice and has no real impact on the quality of the argument presented. <BR/><BR/>I suppose this chapter is necessary in that it relates to Ms de Lisle’s thesis on the development of absolutism in England and how that development was impeded by the rise of masculine counciliar government during the reigns of three successive female monarchs. Edward, Lord Beauchamp married himself to a woman of much lower social status, essentially removing himself from contention as a male successor to Elizabeth, Ms de Lisle argues. And while I agree that a lowly marriage may have removed Edward from being directly nominated by Elizabeth, I am not convinced that it removed him altogether from the consideration of the council. <BR/><BR/>Young Thomas, meanwhile, repeatedly attempted to have his parents’ marriage recognized and he and his brother legitimized, without success. <BR/><BR/>Edward’s marriage to Honora Rogers resulted in several children, the eldest of which (also named Edward) was linked to Arbella Stuart, Bess of Hardwick’s granddaughter. Though the two were never wed (she later married Edward’s younger brother William), the tale of their intrigues is another example of the kinds of stories that make history so fascinating. <BR/><BR/>Elizabeth finally died in 1603 and the crown passed peacefully to James VI of Scotland, son of Mary Stuart and descendant of Margaret Tudor, the very line that English Parliamentary law and the wills of Henry VIII and Edward VI had overlooked for seventy years. Ms de Lisle observes that James accession might be seen as a triumph of divine-right primogeniture, but argues that it was instead a victory for counciliar government since the Council “offer[ed] the crown to the King they had chosen” rather than James’ having claimed it by right. Ms de Lisle’s argument has definite merit, especially in light of the evidence and argument presented in her first book, <I>After Elizabeth: How James King of Scots Won the Crown of England in 1603</I>.PhD Historiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-4069844063222342322009-01-15T14:16:00.000-06:002009-01-15T14:16:00.000-06:00Chapter 26 : A Return to Elizabeth’s CourtMary Gre...Chapter 26 : A Return to Elizabeth’s Court<BR/><BR/>Mary Grey went to live with her mother’s second husband, Adrian Stokes. It is a shame that there is so little evidence to document this man, since he had ties not only to the Greys but also to Sir Walter Raleigh. <BR/><BR/>Seeking personal independence, Mary moved on once again to a house in London. She was able to renew old friendships with some of the female members of Elizabeth’s court. Those friendships were no doubt helpful in keeping Mary out of trouble as religious controversies resurfaced in the early 1570s. Mary steered clear, and seems to have avoided even the slightest hint of involvement in the related succession matters, even as Bess of Hardwick jumped in to them with both metaphorical feet. Bess’s granddaughter and ward Arbella, another of those “tragic” female figures of the Tudor-Stuart succession disputes, wed Charles Stuart, brother of Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, Mary of Scotland’s murdered husband. Arbella was to become the next victim in the ongoing succession struggles.<BR/><BR/>Mary enjoyed a return to court and to the queen’s personal favor, but it was short-lived. She died, perhaps of plague, in April 1578.<BR/><BR/>Ms de Lisle observes that Mary Grey Keyes made a will and endorsed it “Lady Mary Grey ... widow.” Ms de Lisle argues that Mary’s use of her maiden name was obligatory, since Elizabeth had never consented to the marriage to Mr Keyes. The addition of “widow” was an attempt by Mary to “make it clear that she was determined to maintain the memory of her marriage to Mr Keyes,” according to Ms de Lisle. And while I agree that it is entirely likely that Mary wished to remember her marriage, her assertion of status as a widow had meaning of a far more practical nature. Unmarried women in Tudor England were not legally empowered to make wills and to bequeath property, whereas widows were. By staking a claim to widowhood, Mary asserted her right to make a will. And while her property and wealth was modest, I have to suspect that she enjoyed a certain sense of personal accomplishment and satisfaction through the act of disposing of what little she did have. Having been a powerless prisoner for so long, making a will was perhaps for Mary the last and only gesture of self-determination she could make.PhD Historiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-50456943064780347002009-01-14T22:47:00.000-06:002009-01-14T22:47:00.000-06:00Chapter 25 : The Last SisterMary Grey, by then vir...Chapter 25 : The Last Sister<BR/><BR/>Mary Grey, by then virtually penniless and destitute, remained imprisoned and separated from her husband. Ms de Lisle portrays her taking solace in her books, much like her oldest sister Jane. I took a strong personal interest in Ms de Lisle’s suggestion that Mary’s Italian grammar may have been the same small volume written by Michelangelo Florio for Jane in the early 1550s. That book still exists, largely overlooked, in the vaults of the British Library as Sloane Manuscript 3011. It is one of the few documents that was certainly handled by Jane that is today readily accessible to researchers and that they can themselves handle. Call me weird, but even after many years of conducting archival research, I still get a childlike thrill at touching something that I know iconic figures from the past once owned and touched, whether that figure is Jane, Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, Cecil, or someone else.<BR/><BR/>One small quibble that I cannot let pass: Ms de Lisle asserts on page 276 that “Mary Grey remembered the wedding at Bradgate” in which Bess of Hardwick married her second husband. That wedding took place in August 1547, when Mary was at most 2 years old. <BR/><BR/>Ms de Lisle mentions on page 277, very much in passing, that Bess Hardwick Cavendish owned a portrait of Jane Grey. She does not offer a footnote to support that claim. It is, however, a true claim. That portrait is the very one that I have been attempting, off and on over the past few years (as my finances allow) to track down. If it can be found, it will be the only documented life portrait of Jane ... a priceless national treasure.<BR/><BR/>Mary’s jailers, like Katherine’s before her, were anxious to be rid of Mary, so that she too was moved around frequently. At least one of her jailer’s pleaded for relief on the grounds that his wife quarreled mightily and regularly with Mary, resulting in a troubled household. Thanks to a rebellion in the north, Elizabeth did not considered releasing her for some time, however. Meanwhile, Mary’s husband Thomas Keyes died. <BR/><BR/>Finally, in August 1572, Mary was released from captivity and given a small pension by the queen. Broken and all but indigent, she was nonetheless still Elizabeth's close heir under the Acts for the Succession and Henry VIII's will, after sister Katherine's two sons.PhD Historiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-8842320075911771322009-01-14T22:21:00.000-06:002009-01-14T22:21:00.000-06:00Chapter 24 : While I Lived, YoursThis is the short...Chapter 24 : While I Lived, Yours<BR/><BR/>This is the shortest chapter in the entire book, at just four pages. It describes in great detail the pathos-filled end of Katherine Grey, the second Grey sister to lose her life to the succession struggle. Ms de Lisle argues that Katherine essentially starved herself to death out of despair. <BR/><BR/>And the chapter is adequately footnoted to primary sources! (I feel obliged to make that observation, after my repeated calls in earlier chapters for more footnotes.)PhD Historiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-24382564314564249532009-01-14T22:16:00.000-06:002009-01-14T22:16:00.000-06:00Chapter 23 : The Clear ChoiceKatherine re-enters t...Chapter 23 : The Clear Choice<BR/><BR/>Katherine re-enters the picture as she is shifted about among a rapid succession of jailers. I am slightly amazed that Katherine never escaped (nor apparently even attempted to do so), especially since she was sometimes held by septuagenarian jailers in markedly non-secure quarters. Presumably she was quite accepting of her imprisonment, or too fearful of the consequences of a failed escape. But in light of some of the more dramatic flights from captivity engineered by other Tudor figures, including females, it seems odd and in need of further exploration.<BR/><BR/>The English succession issue is further complicated by the birth to Mary Stuart of a son, the Riccio murder, Darnley’s murder, and Mary’s rapid remarriage to a man accused in Darnley’s death. Katherine’s position as the native-born heir would seem to be strengthened by the scandals even as it was challenged by Mary’s delivery of a son. <BR/><BR/>Ms de Lisle again does a fine job of resurrecting the obvious potential for instability in the English monarchy perceived by contemporaries but largely lost to those of us viewing the era in hindsight. If history is written by the victors, Ms de Lisle gives voice to the losers. She illuminates the struggle between Elizabeth’s stubborn nature and Cecil’s patient strong will, highlighting the division between the two over the succession where most historians have portrayed them as staunch allies. <BR/><BR/>We vividly see, too, how the succession struggle weighed on Katherine, as did the separation from her husband and elder son, accelerating the untimely decline of her health.PhD Historiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-28778036646464737192009-01-13T21:45:00.000-06:002009-01-13T21:45:00.000-06:00Apologies to all who are waiting with baited breat...Apologies to all who are waiting with baited breath to read the next installments, but I am delayed again. I have spent too much time today responding to fascinating questions in other threads, as well as attending to my "real work," and have no time left to work on new postings. I <I>have</I> finished reading the book, so it is just a matter of doing the write-ups. Tomorrow (Wednesday), I promise!PhD Historiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-49213870237124780832009-01-13T21:41:00.000-06:002009-01-13T21:41:00.000-06:00Good question, Denise.Frances was little more than...Good question, Denise.<BR/><BR/>Frances was little more than a distant and unlikely heir after the Act for the Succession of 1544. Under the terms of that act, Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth each had to die without issue of their own before Frances could/would become queen. Prior to early 1553, no one had any real reason to think it likely that Edward would die without issue, much less his two half-sisters. All three dying without having had children was unimaginable and extremely unlikely.<BR/><BR/>Edward deliberately set Frances aside as an heir to the throne herself. Some historians, including myself, believe that this was because Edward thought Frances was unlikely to bear additional male children after 1553. Her last child, Mary, had been born eight years earlier, and there appears to have been no pregnancies between 1545 and 1553. If she could not have a son, she was all but useless as an heir to the crown.<BR/><BR/>Ms de Lisle discusses in her book the fact that during Mary's reign, Frances was indeed Mary's heir after Elizabeth. And since Elizabeth was still illegitimate under the various Succession Acts, some thought Frances would inherit the crown instead of Elizabeth.<BR/><BR/>However, Elizabeth did inherit. And for the first year of Elizabeth's reign, Frances <I>was</I> her immediate heir under the various Succession Acts and Henry VIII's will. But Frances died exactly one year after Elizabeth became queen, leaving her daughter Katherine as the next in line.PhD Historiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-36897456788846695702009-01-13T20:57:00.000-06:002009-01-13T20:57:00.000-06:00This is really fascinating. Thanks PhD Historian!...This is really fascinating. Thanks PhD Historian! I can't wait to read it for myself as well as your book.<BR/><BR/>I have one question that always bothered me about the succession. What happened to Frances Brandon's claim? I understand that Jane was probably chosen for support by Northumberland because of her youth and marriage to his son. But after she was executed for usurping and things calmed down, why wasn't Frances considered the next heir from Mary Tudor's line? Was she dead/retired by the time Elizabeth was Queen? Did Henry bypass her in his succession act? I know he ignored his older sister Margaret's descendents.Denisenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-87619491696350652692009-01-13T02:27:00.000-06:002009-01-13T02:27:00.000-06:00KB, I do indeed have Davey "well dissected"! He re...KB, I do indeed have Davey "well dissected"! He relied heavily on Strickland for both of his books on the Grey sisters. And he repeated all of her mistakes, some verbatim. He also "invented" a few new mistakes of his own. I am of the opinion that serious students of legitimate history should set Davey aside as nothing more than historical fiction, in the same vein as Philippa Gregory, Jean Plaidy, and others. Were Davey alive today, he would be writing next season's episodes of Showtime's "The Tudors."<BR/><BR/>My apologies for the delay in fresh postings. I've been pre-occupied with work. I plan to resume on Tuesday evening.PhD Historiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-20075407318466614652009-01-12T19:33:00.000-06:002009-01-12T19:33:00.000-06:00Following up on the date of Mary Grey's marriage a...Following up on the date of Mary Grey's marriage and the Knollys-Cave wedding....<BR/><BR/>Doran's ODNB article does not seem to list Strickland but does list R. Davey, The sisters of Lady Jane Grey and their wicked grandfather (1911) which I have just downloaded from the internet archive. There the August date is listed and although Davey critiques Strickland a couple of times, I suspect the date may have been copied from her 'Lives of the Tudor Princesses'.<BR/><BR/>I presume PHD Historian has the Davey well dissected.kbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04840188159816630368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-13877008413179047542009-01-12T09:56:00.000-06:002009-01-12T09:56:00.000-06:00Phd Historian – Yes, I did ask about the Yale mini...Phd Historian – Yes, I did ask about the Yale miniature. Thanks for your extra comments. I also enjoyed reading your review of John Guy’s review. Very interesting!Tamisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18331033036484296289noreply@blogger.com